Open Source Hardware Gets Public Introduction

JoeBorn writes "The Sunday New York Times has an article on Neuros video recorder and describes the benefits of open source hardware to its mainstream readership. Can a mainstream audience appreciate that hackability can translate into new features or will it all just seem too geeky? In this case, the Neuros OSD got a YouTube browser. While the details might be lost on the average reader, are they getting the sense that some companies allow users to benefit from other users modifications while others are actively bricking products for applying 3rd party apps? In other words, is openness starting to add value to the brands that support it?"

Comments

Isn't It Simple?

[RAMMS EIN]

Aren't the benefits of open source, or, generally, hackable hardware very simple to explain?

If there is any bug, or desireable feature that is missing, or really any kind of improvement to be made, it can be made by anyone. This includes you, but you don't have to do it yourself - chances are there is somebody who wants the same improvement and will make it and share it with the world. Sure, companies will also enhance closed-source products, but now it's not just the company that does this, but a large group of volunteers, as well. This means that improvements can be expected to be made much more quickly and in many more directions at once. Plus, if the company ever stops supporting the product, the community will continue supporting it until the last person has lost interest.

There. Was that so difficult?

Re:Warranty and expectations of the average consum

[cp.tar]

Don't forget that most open source software comes with big warnings that there are absolutely no warranties. Do most consumers really expect the same from their hardware?

Have you actually read Microsoft's EULA? Any of them?

Besides, one could argue that the source code is a warranty unto itself: a warranty that nothing is hidden, and if it doesn't work, you can check it yourself. And if the development stops, you can pick it up yourself.

Therefore, Open Source software in itself warrants you the ability to check for spyware, to make provisions for continued development (what can you do when MS decides to EOL one of their products?) and the ability to fix bugs if you have or can afford the know-how.

And it seems to me that's much more than closed source software guarantees.

Side note: I'm excited about openmoko, the open hardware (and open source software) cell phone. Waiting for the second revision, which will include 802.11.

I'm buying it the moment it's ready for mass market as well.

--
Our microcontroller kit, guide, and free videos. Your GCC compiler. Learn digital electronics today!

Why don't you use a real signature? I don't mind seeing them, but I do mind having to edit them out.